I was invited then disinvited to discuss Bradley Manning on BBC Breakfast TV this morning. I was delighted and really surprised that the BBC were prepared to give such prime media exposure to the case against the persecution of Manning. I should have realised it would not be allowed to happen.

I was asked to appear twice, once after 7 and once after 8, and to explain why the case of Bradley Manning ought to concern people in the UK. BBC Breakfast is based in Salford. So the BBC sent me train tickets, booked a room in the Holiday Inn and organised a cab for me from Manchester Piccadilly. I had reached so far as Euston from St Pancras yesterday when I discovered, rather by chance that my slots on BBC breakfast had been cancelled. I was instead offered a single live interview at 6.40 am that would not be repeated.

I suppose the BBC are at least being more subtle; instead of management intervention outright to cancel a possible airing of dissident thought, they are pretending to give it a voice by broadcasting it before 95% of the audience are awake. I was not prepared to participate in such tokenism, so I turned round and came home.

It of course brings back memories of when I was on my way to Leeds to take part in BBC Question Time, and was cancelled en route, and replaced by another neo-con clone. A Freedom of Information Act request for the documents and emails concerning that cancellation was refused by the BBC on the grounds of a Freedom of Information exemption for journalism. Censorship is not journalism.

Good to see that the odious war criminal James Purnell is earning his £295,000 a year by keeping the air waves free of thought.

Given the extraordinary amount of time the BBC has devoted to promoting the ludicrous trumped up charges against Julian Assange, their non-coverage of the Bradley Manning trial today is chilling.

The BBC has given no exposure to Bilderberg either and its party of Banksters and Politicians. It is not difficult to work out why. I wonder how many BBC executives will be at the Grove Hotel, Watford, from Thursday onward?

Bradley Manning is just as important. The United States broke its own military laws to keep him imprisoned without trial. Now he is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and if he became a laureate it would be one of the best decisions the Nobel committee ever made. He would not be the first Nobel prizewinner to be imprisoned but it would put pressure on the most repressive country since the second world war.

All BBC out-put has to be ”balanced”. So Craig, you were cancelled because the BBC couldn’t find a Nazi to appear with you or anytime that morning to give an opposing opinion – that traitors should be tortured and killed and so on.
Perhaps they were all on Sky that morning?

Craig – I thought this had happened when I waited in vain to hear you on the after 08.00 slot you had originally expected. I’m in two minds about your principled decision not to accept the earlier interview slot. It’s at least possible that some in the BBC would like to be able to include you on a topic on which you can speak with considerable authority. They might be disappointed at not being able to use the argument “Look, we had Craig on – but only for an early-morning slot, to meet your worries – and the sky did not fall in?” Also, commentators are likely to pick up anything on Bradley Manning at present and would note that your views were being given air-time on the BBC.

You’d think the Manning case was controversial. In the real world, it isn’t of course. Manning is a whistleblower who revealed war-crimes, who should be let out immediately, and recompensed for his torture. This isn’t controversial at all, to anybody operating rationally, who has bothered to consider the matter for, oh, more than 10 seconds. But in the strange military-media-industrial world, everything about Manning is controversial. So controversial that an ex-diplomatic has to be dicked around and effectively censored just in case he says something sane. It’s the Kafka-esque levels of vindictive pettiness that are so tiresome.

And, nope, I don’t give a flying if it’s a military tribunal; that’s the lamest, most authoritarian-blowing excuse I’ve ever heard. Soldiers can be whistleblowers too, and anyone who says otherwise is a cretin. It sure does appear that the entire US Foreign policy apparatus is filled with cretins, mind. But who could be surprised?

“So the BBC sent me train tickets, booked a room in the Holiday Inn and organised a cab for me from Manchester Piccadilly”.

I’ll give the Beeb one thing – they sure know how to piss away public money.

Anyway, I saw you on RT, so not all bad then. And RT seems to get along ok with video links.

Very few people watch BBC Breakfast for anything other than background noise anyway. I can’t bear the way the presenters talk to viewers as if they are children. In fact, most of the BBC’s output these days seems to be aimed at adults with learning difficulties. And that awful red and black colour scheme combined with the loud drum noise is terrible when you have a hangiver.

Craig, have you considered that you may be persona non grata at the BBC since you committed the ultimate sin of “saying the woman’s name”. Maybe someone like Gavin Esler saw you were going to appear and said “Oh Christ no! We can’t have him on, he SAID THE NAME.” This would be a convenient way of suppressing you, even though the name appeared on the BBC’s own website.

A poor interview from Rachel Burden though. She seems to have been told to give the impression to the general listener that this was about someone who had been a very silly boy – “What on earth was he thinking?” she gasped. She then invented facts to support this – “his defence will be along the lines that he didn’t really understand what Wikileaks was all about”.

You did well to deal with this nonsense calmly and set out, at least some of, the true facts.

damn, that is some shady goings on, right there. of course the bbc is state media, but you always hold out hope that it’s not entirely enthral to the whim of the government, who in turn, of course, are at the whim of the US government. so the bbc is really being controlled from washington.
which sucks.

They’re just checking to see whether you still want to appear on the BBC, and it seems that even with their repeated contemptuous treatment of you, you still are. Until people such as yourself tell the BBC that you don’t want to appear, explaining why, they’ll content themselves that they’re still the hottest date in town.

Much better to ignore the BBC and concentrate on RT and other alternative outlets, allowing the BBC to fizzle out as a serious news and current affairs outlet. It’s already 90% percent of the way there, so just let it go.

As it is, you’re just pandering to them.

The only way now to deal with this increasingly disgusting outfit is unrelenting boycott, divestment and whatever other sanctions become available. That’s the only language they understand.

This is how bbc keeps itself “relevant”, now and again in the off peek times injects a bit of reality into the fairy tales it broadcasts as “news”. Thus straight faces can be kept when anyone talks about the “impartiality” in bbc.

“The only MP willing to raise these issues in the House of Commons is Norman Baker, the MP for Lewes. When his book on the death of Dr. David Kelly was published he was interviewed by Jeremy Vine on BBC radio. He was accused of being a “conspiracy theorist” and was not treated with the respect he deserved. Yet he is treated very differently when he is talking about the way MPs have been fiddling their expenses. The same goes for the Guardian. They gave his book a very unfair review and concentrated on minor issues without addressing the evidence that appears in his book.”

It’s even worse when you discover that when Bradley Manning, who is half Welsh, was taken and tortured in the USA for exposing U.S. war crimes, members of the F.B.I. turned up in Wales to harass and interrogate his Welsh mother, who is in ill health following a series of strokes. They were escorted to her house, let in, helped in their abuse and then escorted away when Manning’s aunt intervened, by a British police officer.
Not only should that also be a big news story for Britain, it’s very scary indeed that most people don’t know about it because it’s not reported. It seems that Wales doesn’t matter when it comes to law and human rights, because Britain is England and England is a state of the USA.

David Cronin is the author of Europe’s Alliance With Israel: Aiding the Occupation (Pluto Press, 2011). He has written for a wide variety of publications, including The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal Europe, European Voice, the Inter Press Service, The Irish Times and The Sunday Tribune. As a political activist, he has attempted to place both Tony Blair and Avigdor Lieberman under citizen’s arrest for crimes against humanity.

“If you would have said anything newsworthy, your interview would have the Minot possibility of being rebroadcast.

Most importantly, in the modern era, the time doesn’t matter, as long as it can be recorded and made available/viral for anyone to view in the future”.

Hate to point out but the BBC controls any recordings made and only the BBC can decide whether what Craig may have said would have been “newsworthy” (by their definition) at some future undefined date or if the recording (assuming it exists) would be made “available”.

Given their ‘unbiased’ record to date either scenario would appear to be unlikely.

The pro paedophile pro Zionist BBC are unable to report reality with respect to Julian, Bradley and Palestine and anything else that undermines the Neocon Zionist domination. Ian Katz the well know Zionist has just been made producer of Newsnight. Do you think the BBC is going to report reality? I don’t think so.

Thanks are due to Queue Politely for the video which has excellent clarity of sound and picture.

Queuepolitely – Documentary Film Production

Videos
Discussion
About
Search Channel

Queuepolitely are a collective of filmmakers and artists and acts as an independent, non-partisan platform for the creation, distribution and documentation of alternative political and socio-economic entertainment in a graphic novel influenced style . When appropriate, the consensus dictates an egalitarian truth centered approach.

I’m suprised that you ‘re suprised Craig .The bullshit brainwashing corruption is total as anyone who bothered to watch last wednesday’s documentary on Iraq must realise.They have given up on any attempt at “balanced” reporting in favour of the Goering strategy “Tell the lies often enough and they will become the accepted truth” We are being squeezed from every angle, the filth were corraling and arresting anti fascists only last week!It is getting uglier by the day.Please keep trying Craig but watch your back.

Someone at 12.25 pm. Take a look at this regarding not just the death of Dr David Kelly but the BBC’s false reporting of the demolition of building 7 on the day of 9/11, paedophile trusties at the BBC, and programmes pulled. It is right on topic.

1. It may allow the BBC to claim balance on the Bradley Manning issue while effectively hiding one side of the debate by airing it when very few people are watching.
2. In Craig’s case, it’s an insult to be offered this as a replacement for a Breakfast TV slot.

To do the interview…

1. It won’t allow the BBC to claim they tried to get a balance of opinions but one side refused the opportunity, or that they tried to get a specific individual, but that individual turned them down.
2. When there are few opportunities available for making public comment on issues such as Bradley Manning and his trial, these opportunities should be taken.

Of course we can only speculate as to how the interviews would have gone, or how Craig and his point of view would have been treated.

It is of course very disappointing that Craig should again be pulled from a high profile BBC appearance. I presume no credible explanation was offered as to why this happened. To guess that someone higher in the editorial or production hierarchy intervened doesn’t seem an unreasonable assumption. It would be interesting and instructive to know exactly who, and exactly why.

how shameful they let a child abuser run rampant for so long, but I suppose given the type of people who hold powerful positions in BBC hurting children is second nature, why don’t we boycott these devious bastards

The disrespect shown to Craig is simply the ‘iron curtain’ of low level intelligence, the ‘psst’ blue pencil from the scumbags of society that shadow World Radio.

The power of intention is one certain way to progress reason and truth. Without sounding Bohemian or beatnik, we have to deepen, strengthen and network our mental connections, our love for/of each other.

Craig is part of that matrix and the embryonic thought. A discussion, any discussion Craig makes is therefore a flawless expansion of wisdom and understanding.

I work in a major department of the UK Civil Service. In a spare moment around lunchtime today, I did a quick browse of what (if anything) the corporate media were saying about the story.

I found that all stories relating to Bradley Manning on the sites of The Grundiad, The Independ-not and the Toryglyph were being blocked by the department’s web-blocking software. I couldn’t try the BBC ones because we’re still having to use IE6 and clicking on any links on the BBC News front page crashes the browser.

Only those stories; stories about, say, Syria or fiddling peers were all accessible. Knowing the people in charge of IT in the department, then cock-up is a possibility, of course, but why only the stories about BM?

The Judge at 9.15 p.m. Exactly. Many things I try to access are forbidden. 404 messages are a regular occurrence with important sites. I, and others, think the US economy is about to pop. The US National Debt is growing so fast that all the earnings of all the Global US concerns together if they do not pay wages cannot cover this exponentially increasing debt. Germany is calling home its gold. Russia and China too. Things are going to be hard for all of us, particularly communication.

As an example, this week is the week of Bilderberg at The Grove in Watford. Last week I put up a blogpost about the Bilderberg Fringe Festival. It has taken the least number of hits of any blogpost I’ve put up. The latest blogpost I put up twenty four hours ago and it has already taken nearly three times as many hits.

The good news is they cannot monitor us all, all of the time. And if telecommunications fail their problem will be worse than knowing where political activists and writers are.

Fascinating case, undermining Zionist attempts to define anti-semitism in line with their own political project.

by MIKE MARQUSEE

“Taunting and tainting opponents with the charge of anti-semitism is a long-standing Zionist ploy, familiar to everyone involved in the Israel-Palestine issue.”

Some of the gems:

“Fraser and his celebrity lawyer, Anthony Julius, argued that debates and decisions on Israel-Palestine issues within UCU amounted to “harassment” against Fraser as a Jew. They made ten specific allegations to support this charge; every one of them was dismissed by the Tribunal as false or irrelevant.”

“The judges had harsh words for a number of Fraser’s witnesses, particularly the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, Jeremy Newmark, whose testimony as to his alleged treatment at a UCU meeting was labelled “false”. Two Labour MPs, John Mann and Denis Macshane (still in Parliament when the hearings were held last autumn), appeared for Fraser but did him no favours. They were criticised by the Tribunal for giving “glib evidence…Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.””

“Unions in general should be relieved that the judges have found that they are not liable for psychological “damage” arising from debates among members.”

““A belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic,” they declare, adding “It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness.” It’s welcome to have this simple truth, so fiercely denied by Israel’s advocates, upheld as logical and lawful.”

“a political view cannot claim “protected” status simply because many members of a particular religion or “race” hold it. If that were to be the case, political debate would be shut down.”

““We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means… ”

Thanks Herbie, there is still some justice. Unfortunately this was only a tribunal and demonstrates while there are still legal authorities who are not prepared to be bribed there remain those who are. However, and if there are any Law Court, High Court or Supreme Court judges reading this blog, be warned that there is a welter of documentation of trials that have been unfair, like that of Babar Ahmed, Talha Ahsan, Abu Qatada and a whole host of other persecutions from former and present prime ministers and home secretaries, generally directed at Muslims. Remember Nuremberg. It will not be the persecuted Jews when the next judgement comes to pass.

I was gonna post a foto i took on a beach in West Kilbride, It has Majestic Arran in Back ground across the Clyde….its written Large in the sand, Reads ( Free Bradley Manning ) a foto taken last year
But the moniker i use for photo site, i use on many other places, with much personal info, family fotos ect ect … If someone could tell me i’m a wee bity paranoid ats kool

“Come on, John Goss – the USA is “the most repressive country since the second world war” ???

Ever heard of the Soviet Union, to name just contender?”

Well, look at the total spectrum of the swing-meter to date, i.e. from where to where to the present moment. And if the US is not the most repressive, it certainly is the most violent and most unhealthy nation today on the planet. Worse still, throwing its violence and poor health, including GMO seeds all round the world. Don’t bury your head in the sand.

Thanks for the support Villager. Mr Habbabkuk has probably spent his life soaking up BBC propaganda about how bad the USSR was. It actually turned a repressive monarchy into a superpower which provided health-services and education for all. Yes there was Beria and Stalin, and incursions into Hungary (1956) and the Czech republic (1968) and you might even include Afghanistan (1979) though it was asked there. But the US, even after nuking Japan, was involved in some of the bloodiest most deadly wars using its latest most abominable weapons in countries ranging from Korea, through Vietnam to the first Gulf War, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and lots of other countries where it spread its evil tentacles. No comparison H. Go back to school.

June 03, 2013 “Information Clearing House” — Alex Gibney’s new film, “We Steal Secrets,” is about WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. It dutifully peddles the state’s contention that WikiLeaks is not a legitimate publisher and that Bradley Manning, who allegedly passed half a million classified Pentagon and State Department documents to WikiLeaks, is not a legitimate whistle-blower. It interprets acts of conscience and heroism by Assange and Manning as misguided or criminal. It holds up the powerful—who are responsible for the plethora of war crimes Manning and Assange exposed—as, by comparison, trustworthy and reasonable. Manning is portrayed as a pitiful, naive and sexually confused young man. Assange, who created the WikiLeaks site so whistle-blowers could post information without fear of being traced, is presented as a paranoid, vindictive megalomaniac and a sexual deviant. “We Steal Secrets” is agitprop for the security and surveillance state.

“And if the US is not the most repressive, it certainly is the most violent and most unhealthy nation today on the planet”

1/. I shouldn’t have thought that the US comes out that badly in the repression stakes compared to many other countries. But that of course depends to an extent on how you define repression (is the death penalty an example of repression, for instance).

2/. It may well be a violent and unhealthy nation, but that wasn’t was John Goss said, was it. He claimed that the USA was “the most repressive country since the second world war”, which is not the same thing.

@ John Goss :

1/. Your supposition is incorrect: most of my knowledge of the former USSR comes from sources other the BBC.

2/. “It actually turned a repressive monarchy into a superpower which provided health-services and education for all.”

And you could equally well say that the USA, for much of the same period, turned a {insert whichever word you wish} into a superpower which provided economic opportunity and the highest standard of living in the world for its people.

3/. “Yes there was Beria and Stalin, and incursions into Hungary (1956) and the Czech republic (1968)”

To which you might add the enslavement of Easter Europe and half of Germany fpr the trifling period of 45 years?

Flaming June, thanks for Chris Hedges’ analysis of “We Steal Secrets”. Another principled writer. I won’t waste my money going to see this crock of schmaltz so I’m going to have to sit down and read the script, when I get an hour and a half to spare. As if we don’t get enough propaganda from the BBC. By the way, I don’t suppose you’ve come across April Showers in your travels have you?

“And you could equally well say that the USA, for much of the same period, turned a {insert whichever word you wish} into a superpower which provided economic opportunity and the highest standard of living in the world for its people.”

The word I would insert is “republic” the rest of the sentence needs to be qualified by “on borrowed money”. As Georgii Vladimirovich Ivanov (1894-1958) said of the wild animals in Razpad Atoma (1938) “winter is coming”.

“To which you might add the enslavement of Easter Europe and half of Germany fpr the trifling period of 45 years?”

Habba, i was implying oppressive. Repressive is much the same thing when subjugation occurs by design as it has especially so in the present century.

Remember the good old days of the ’90’s the Berlin Wall had fallen, technology boomed, the dot-com revolution was upon us and blow jobs in the Oval Room were the order of the day. The planet was mislead that we were all marching into the rainbow at 2000 — a sense of oneness around the Globe. Where did the American Dream go?

“Remember the good old days of the ’90′s the Berlin Wall had fallen, technology boomed,….”
________

Yes, of course. And there was a lot of talk of the peace dividend as well….

@ John Goss:

1/. “Habbabkuk, why did you not mention the Soviet gulags? I think we can guess”

Perhaps I’ve been fooling around on the beach for too long, but I’m genuinely puzzled. It seemed superfluous to mention them given their common noteriety, but tell me

2/. So countries like Uzbekistan are free now?

Again, not sure what you mean. I was referring to the previously independent countries of central and eastern Europe, not the constituent republics of the old USSR. But if you’re saying that the latter (or many, or most of them) are not free today – in the sense I think we mean – than I’d agree with you. However, I don’t see the relevance of that to my statement that the USSR was a supremely repressive state.

Why the hell do you have to travel all the way to Salford Quays from Kent? Bloody stupid waste of time and money. Why can’t they interview you remotely from a local studio or by broadband from your computer at home like RT do with Annie Machon in Dusseldorf?

“H, surely the comparison with Soviet camps and Guantanamo, plus other US prisons far away from the US and places of extraordinary rendition could only have escaped you.”
————-

Nice try, John, but unconvincing.

GITMO and others unknown : a couple of thousand at most.

Soviet gulag : 10 million at least…..

Of course, you’ll say that there is no MORAL difference. Well, I would disagree, and in any case your original assessment was quantitative in flavour and intent, viz “..the MOST repressive country since the second world war”.

Oh! before I forget, I don’t recall the US having carried out a Holomodor against its own citizens…?

Between 1930 and 1960 14 million Soviet citizens were sent to Gulag camps, most after just a short show trial, many after no trial at all. Over one million died from the effects of maltreatment or were worked to death. By comparison Gitmo, which has had less than 800 detainees since 2002, is a holiday camp.

Calling the US the most repressive nation since WW2 is a trendy opinion, repeated parrot fashion, which doesn’t stand up to evidence. Uzbekistan might not be free but no less free than they were under Soviet rule.

Suppression only works if no one knows there is ready and comprehensive contact, Craig. And then to deny it, however plausibly and/or vehemently, reveals the weaknesses sat around tables at the top of the dodgy control system and a vulnerability to exploit and export/import to others, in systems which are impossible to effectively defend, and which can be easily attacked to collapse its corrupt and perverse, indefensible and inequitable power base[s] ……… http://www.ur2die4.com/?p=4203

Why the hell do you have to travel all the way to Salford Quays from Kent? Bloody stupid waste of time and money. Why can’t they interview you remotely from a local studio or by broadband from your computer at home like RT do with Annie Machon in Dusseldorf? ….
Venceremos 4 Jun, 2013 – 4:36 pm

Because that then destroys completely the contrived myth that state and private media mogul operations have control and power with their pimping and pumping of particular and peculiar world views via the utterances and iterations of their preferred and presented puppet muppets [PMs] ….. Primed Mouthpieces.

To have alternative intelligent thought transfers and alternative intelligence thoughts transferred virtually immediately and practically unhindered, would extraordinarily render politics and its soap show operations, a mortal blow, as it reveals their aired programs to both the ignorant masses and the freely smarter educated and better entertained to be badly scripted and in support of dodgy interests with no equity in the future? And that is an abiding and indefensible, and therefore incredibly easy and catastrophically huge black hole of a cyber attack vector/zeroday vulnerability exploit opportunity to export/import into operating systems/executive administrations, for those with the ability and utility/smarter enabled facility to provide for themselves and whomever/whatever they would choose to support or deny assistance to, whatever they wanted or was deemed necessary.

Such is the Powerful Control and Controlling Power of Savvy Internet Sourcing for SMARTR Advanced IntelAIgent Systems with Global Operating Devices which be both Primed for Pimping and Pumping Provision of Creative Novel Words for Newly Ordered World Order Plays ….. in the Greater Great Game [which be following IT and Media with CyberIntelAIgent Leads in AI Revised Evolutionary and QuITe Revolutionary HyperRadioProActive Energy ProgramMING for All Future Viable Sees with AIdDefinite Vision, and which is deliberately emboldened and quarantined from the main body of shared text above which precedes it, in this bracketed box, to both either draw attention to itself, or for you to presently dismiss it from your further thoughts, thus to allow its return at a later date, as future events unfold and the truth in what is here transparently shared with you, becomes evidently apparent and mainstream news.]

“Politics is show business for ugly people” ….. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2010/12/who_says_washington_is_hollywo.html …. and the mean spirited are career austerity politicians with zero practical or virtual moral authority over anything worthwhile and desirable, which makes them all rather more than just a tad trad and sad and mad and rad and not at all fab ……. which be just plain vanilla ordinary whenever extraordinary is always all that is needed to effectively lead a following.

“Oh! before I forget, I don’t recall the US having carried out a Holomodor against its own citizens…?”

Kibo Noh mentioned the native Americans Habbabkuk. But even during the same years of the Starvation in the USSR (1932-33) the United States was suffering similarly with the Great Depression. You won’t want to believe the essence of this article because the research was done by a Russian.

” … during the same years of the Starvation in the USSR (1932-33) the United States was suffering similarly with the Great Depression. You won’t want to believe the essence of this article because the research was done by a Russian. ”

Well firstly that research is nonsense. You can’t simply look at population figures and assume the missing millions all died of hunger. Inevitably the birth rate fell during the depression years and immigration also never reached pre-WW1 levels; in fact for several years immigration stopped completely. Why would anyone want to go to a country experiencing a depression?

The other big difference is that the American government spent millions (billions in todays money) trying to alleviate the effects of the depression whilst the famine in Russia was deliberately caused by state intervention. Part of Stalin’s plan to exterminate the Kulaks and was efficiently covered up.

Inevitably the birth rate fell during the depression years and immigration also never reached pre-WW1 levels; in fact for several years immigration stopped completely.

The other big difference is that the American government spent millions (billions in todays money) trying to alleviate the effects of the depression whilst the famine in Russia was deliberately caused by state intervention. Part of Stalin’s plan to exterminate the Kulaks and was efficiently covered up.

Good rejoinders Kempe; on the immigration point,in the case of the Irish there was actually net emigration from the US in the early thirties; the Free State (as it then was) offered rudimentary assistance to the destitute (a legacy from their terminated membership of the UK) whereas the Land of the Free could offer them nothing beyond private charity and soup kitchens.

Readers who ploughed through ‘Angela’s Ashes’ will recall that Frank McCourt’s parents were part of this wave of returnees during the depression years.

I personally feel bad for Manning, but I had his clearance before. It’s pretty simple, even if you’re morally opposed to what you’ve seen or know, you don’t share or release information unless you’re willing to pay the price. When you join the armed forces of the US, you essentially sign a contract before taking an oath, and you’re pretty much owned by the government until your enlistment period is finished. Top that off with being military personnel or civilian, if you APPLY for a TS/SCI clearance and are granted, you are throughly made aware of the consequences of giving secrets.

While one could say that the controls at the FOB he was based at were pretty absent (such as there was a DVD drive, and it was not disabled via the BIOS, and anyone who had access to the small shack also had essentially access to the 3 major DoD and State Dept. networks), he knew upfront that if one releases information that person should be willing to pay the price. He also should have known better than to BRAG about it to a hacker in the SFB area! Also, Manning was having a big issue in his love life which some have felt may have lead him to do what he did…..

This shocking bias in our publicly funded broadcaster must be stopped! i.e. Tonight’s Question Time, a referendum special, is coming from Edinburgh, with an audience of 16 and 17 year olds. The panel? Labour (Sanwar), Tory (Davidson), Respect (a party with no representation in Scotland, George Galloway), UKIP (Farage), Lesley Riddoch who supports devo max, then ONE supporter of independence… Angus Robertson.